reames added a comment. In D143953#4124649 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143953#4124649>, @jrtc27 wrote:
> In D143953#4124636 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D143953#4124636>, @reames wrote: > >> @jrtc27 Not sure if this changes your take, but I realized the variant being >> introduced is maybe much less interesting than I'd first thought. We >> generally make no effort to make sure an extension was defined in the spec >> version corresponding to our base revision. Given that, we have a bunch of >> cases where we allow I2.0 + some random extension. Given that, this one >> stops looking all that interesting. It doesn't actually set much precedent >> - because we already did that, a long time ago. >> >> If you agree with that framing, I'll rework the description. > > Hm, do we allow M + Zmmul? If so then I guess I can get behind that view. $ ~/llvm-dev/build/bin/clang -target riscv64 -march=rv64g_zmmul vector_add_i32.c -S $ cat vector_add_i32.s .text .attribute 4, 16 .attribute 5, "rv64i2p0_m2p0_a2p0_f2p0_d2p0_zmmul1p0" vector_add_i32.c is a random C file; contents are uninteresting. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D143953/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D143953 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
